My grandfather worked on the Arrow, specifically the RADAR systems, he also installed RADAR on the AVRO Lancasters. He worked at the AVRO (later became an MD factory) in the Northeast corner of what is now Toronto Pearson International Airport (it used to be Malton Airport). ETA my grandfather also worked on the DEW line up in the arctic, mostly out of Alert (in what is now Nunavut) so he was hardly ever home, I didn't get to meet him until I was 5-years-old. But he often regaled us grandkids of his "adventures" in the RCAF during WW2 as a pilot in a Lancaster, his favourite was how he lost one of his big toes while flying over the channel on a bombing run, a ME-109 came up from beneath his plane and got a lucky shot the bullet went through the bombardier's compartment (missing all the vital gear in there), through the cockpit floor, through the rudder pedal and his boot and shot off his toe and embedded itself in the underside of the control panel. Now, all of you that know planes and know the Lancaster especially will know a shot like that is practically impossible, us grandkids didn't... until I became a Royal Canadian Air Cadet, I got to see inside a Lancaster, it was then I knew that story to be made up. So, I asked him privately what really happened to his toe. The story, when he told it to me, was far less dramatic/heroic and was far more in line with our family's true nature, being clumsy. He was helping carry a large piece of what would become one of the windows of the nose, it slipped out of his hands and fell onto his steel-toed boots crushing his big toe to the point of it having to be amputated. So, yep, my gramps was less heroic and more of butter fingers, he only made it over to Britain in 1945 and then only to repair/replace/install RADAR in Lancasters that were already in service.
The USA used the British Electric Canberra, calling it the B-57 Canberra, from 1953-1983. NASA was still using a few of them in 2006, when the UK retired them.
In fairness, it wasn't so much that "one" mole infiltrated AVRO; it was that apparently, AVRO was so thoroughly infiltrated that the KGB had complete designs and technical specifications for the Arrow, sometimes getting them even before the RCAF did. As for why a warmed-over Arrow wasn't chosen over the F-35, it's simple. The Arrow *did* end up going into service, in a somewhat modified form, as the MiG-25. The thought of trying to buy what was essentially a vaguely-modernized *1950s* design in the late *2010s* was pretty much a non-starter for the same reason that nobody is buying modernized Sherman tanks today...
I find it funny that many years later they found the ejection seat and a engine in a England hanger. which the engine was bought back by a Canadian. so did they truly destroy the aircraft?
If you do a sequel to this video you should include the Lockheed L1011 Tristar. It was meant to compete against the Mcdonnel Douglas DC-10 but has hampered by two years of delays due to Rolls Royce having trouble making the engines for the Tristar and the DC-10 got there before it. Only 250 wound up being built and only one is still airworthy.
At least our boy Darkness used a picture of an F-111 that was assigned to RAF Lakenheath (48th FW) in this video; that was pretty neat but that’s just me.
Two other examples of amazing planes that never stood a chance... the Sud Est Se212 Durandal and the Nord 1500 Griffon II. They both were cancelled in favor of the Dassault Mirage III and the similar Mirage 5.
The TSR-2 and Arrow weren't primarily killed by politics, they were primarily killed by _a changing threat enviroment_ instead. In the Arrow's case, it came out just as SLBMs (Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles) and ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) pushed the bomber out as the primary method of nuclear delivery. In the TSR-2's case, you can thank the Americans spooking the Soviets with the YB-70 Valkyrie for that... which led to the deployment of SAMs capable of hitting low-altitude, high-speed targets with quite a bit of effectiveness.
Nope!!! The TSR2 was cancelled because the aircraft couldn't do the missions it was designed to do, in other words it didn't fooking work!!. The Aircraft was very overweight and couldn't meet the Operational Requirements of the RAF had set for it in almost all regards (Max range, Max Speed, Max Altitude, Minimum time for an engine chance or the even the number of waypoints and delivery modes for weapons held in the computer memory). The Airframe was made out of a new lightweight alloy that was very brittle and would start to crack up with the minimum amount of impact damage. The Engines didn't fit the aircraft and had resonance issues at certain power setting that could only be fixed with a major redesign of the engine. Computers in the aircraft were too slow and didn't have the memory to hold all of the information required for the mission plans, plus could not keep up with the aircraft as regards navigation (a map, stopwatch and magnetic compass were more accurate!!!). Also the power generation systems couldn't power everything the RAF wanted to add like active ECM pods. The RAF had watched all the money allocated for R&D and production of over 300 aircraft get eaten up (plus they had thrown a number of other projects on the scrapheap to release more money), to find that they were going to get a fraction of the aircraft they wanted (between 50 to 150), which couldn't do what they wanted. When the USA offered the British Government a fixed price deal of 50 F-111's for £300M, the Air Staff of the RAF bit the USA's hands off. RAF canned the TSR2, not the Labour government. All of this has been the Archives since 1995 when it was declassified under the Uk's 30 year rule!!!
The reason we didn't want the arrow in the US was less that it was foreing and more that 1) we already had 3 types in its role (the F-102, F-104, and F-106) and 2) the phantom which was a better aircraft was already in testing before the arrow had even left the drawing board.
I live across the street from Luke AFB and yes they are loud. Way back in 1960 I spent a summer with my uncle who live off the end of runway at Carswell. B-58 Hustlers were also very loud. And my 1971-73 AF tour in Germany was spent in the barracks at end of runway also and F-4 Phantoms are not quiet. Final note(not close this time) lighting off AB in an F-105 Thud is something to remember. I'm 77yo now and don't hear too well. Hmm. You don't suppose?
It can get confusing with America "not buying in", however in the case of the Harrier and the Canberra before that, they were licensed versions built in America. The former by McDonnell-Douglas, as a version of the FRS-5 (aka AV-8A) and the larger FRS-7 (aka AV-8B)... the later was by Martin, yes the same manufacturer who made the flying boats, and the only American Jet powered flying boat bomber....
I'll so add that Australia had developed a Trimaran ship, and well, the US joint builds are being scrapped because of "Reasons", partly as they were built to be modular with system pods (kind of Thunderbird 2 thing), but that didn't work. Also the USMC were looking at acquiring "Bushmaster" wheeled APCs from Australia (then Australian Defense Industries, now Thales Defense), it was to be a blueprint build by Oshkosh.... but Politics and porkbarrelling happened.
The XB-70 Valkyrie was another example of a great plane that didn't have a chance. It was a supersonic bomber developed during the Cold War for the US, and would have been able to deliver a nuclear warhead to anywhere in the world in just hours. It could reach Mach 3, and its wing design could even generate lift from the shock waves it created. However, on one prototype, the tail fin fell off during supersonic flight, which almost resulted in a crash. Then, a second (more advanced) prototype was destroyed during a photo shoot, when an F-104 flew through its jet wash, and crashed into the XB-70, killing some of the crew members. That incident helped to put an end to the program. Also, at the time, there were major breakthroughs in radar and surface-to-air missiles, meaning its speed wouldn't be enough for successful missions. That plane was amazing, but it was far ahead of its time, and instead of politics, it was the victim of many technical issues.
Duncan Sandys pronounced his surname as "Sands". Never take the pronunciation of any name used in the UK at face value. Those of us alive at the time of the project never said "dash" in the name "TSR-2". It was always the "TeeEssAhTwo". (note the non-rhotic English R).
Ah, the AVRO Arrow. One of Canada's most famous white elephants. Probably the greatest justice to this massive mistake is the fact that the Arrows are getting replicas, using the designs smuggled out years ago. And yes, there is a plan to make an actual, full-sized, flying replica of the Arrow in the future. If enough funds are raised, it could happen!
If Devenbacker didn't axe the Avro Arrow, Canada would have been one of the most powerful Dominions of the British Empire, maybe even the world. We truly lost our chance.
Look, another sucker who bought into the CBC propaganda. Sorry to break it to you bud, but the CBC has used patriotism to hide Liberal corruption from you. In reality, the Arrow was a crappy plane, that performed poorly compared to the competition and was much more expensive. The program was outrageously expensive and was causing the rest of the military to be underfunded. The reason the CBC has created the mythology around the Arrow is because the Avro Company had deep ties to the ruling Liberal government. The head of Avro just happened to be close personal friends with the defense minister, and Avro was located in a region the Liberals wanted to win.
yup, and because both would directly compete for overseas sales with American products that they had the potential to be significantly better than this happened with a lot of projects
No, because the threat enviroment changed. By the time that the Arrow was being prototyped, ICBMs and SLBMs replaced bombers in the first-strike role, making the entire concept redundant. The 'low and fast' mentality of the TSR-2 died pretty quickly as the Soviets vastly improved their SAMs to make low-altitude flights _deadly_ to anyone flying there.
12:41 true, but the real reason we didn't want the arrow is because we already had the F-104, F-106, & F4. All of which had similar performance. But ya, I also wish at least one arrow and one TSR2 had been saved
The TSR-2 was killed by political infighting including a Royal Navy type selling the Navy Plane internationally to try and preserve the Royal Navy's Carrier Force by putting the inferior but carrier capable attack plane into a service.
Probably the truth were much more sinister, it was the same period of time that US start to takeover canada's aviation business, judging by that destroy all finished product, it could very much be a NWO scandal shit.
@@Saviliana The UK leftists went war against the Commonwealth's aviation industry. The American government offered to buy the Canadian Air Force Avro Arrows. You kill your own industry someone else will take over. The American government has done many bad things. Gutting the Commonwealth aviation industry was not one of them.
Britain has a lot of amazing planes (that never stood a chance). If you think British Railways was inept, you really should read up on how badly Britain's aerospace industry has declined since the end of WWII.
It topps Scott Manley's lost of space errors,developing a rocket and immediately cancelling it. The same as car manufacturing, nationalise everything and use it as a tool to run the economy.
When talking about the YF-23 you also have to mention that Lockheed did a lot of politicking to remind the USAF of Grumman's issues when delivering the B-2s. If they went purely off of the design requirements then the 23 really should have won the contract. They made it so much of an issue that Northrop Grumman wasn't even invited to compete in the JSF program that bore the F-35. Boeing really has no business trying to produce a fighter.
Avro Arrow would have been a grest intrceptor. And if you look at some of the centuty designs you can see rlemnts of the Arroe. Not suprising many of DHCs dedignersxeent to US companies 😊
We really should talk of the proverbial herd of pachyderms in the room.... AVRO Canada, along with De Havilland, were Shadow factories for these brands... like Fords made in Windsor, Ontario, not Dearborn, Michigan. So AVRO started as A.V. Roe Aircraft Co., shortened to AVRO. Sir Edwin Alliott Verdon-Roe (the A.V. Roe) founded AVRO in 1910 with his brother Humphrey, he sold his shares in 1928, and bought S.E.Saunders and Co., boat builders on the Isle of Wight, rebranding the company Saunders-Roe. A company best remembered for their flying boats, in particular the post war prototypes, the SR.A/1 flying boat fighter jet, the SR.45 "Princess" twin deck, 100 passenger flying boat, with ten turbo-prop engines (eight were paired to drive contrarotating propellers), then there's the paper extrapolation from that into the "Jet Princess" - a jet engined variant with six Rolls-Royce RB.80 Conway engines., the "Duchess" - an enlargement to 200 passengers and eight Rolls-Royce RB.80 Conway engines... which was ordered by Tasman Empire Airways Limited (TEAL, precursor to Air New Zealand), and cancelled to be replaced by Lockheed Electra and Boeing 720's... then finally the "Queen" - a 1000 passenger aircraft aimed not at airlines, but at liner companies, like Penninsula and Orient (P&O), with 24 engines.
It may be spelt Sandys but it's pronounced Sands. Cost overruns plus a basket case economy lesd to the TSR-2's cancellation. The RAF provided the USAF a copy of GOR.339 on which the TSR-2 was based. The USAF got a good deal out of that paper.
The cancellation of the Arrow was intimately connected with Canada’s adoption of the CIM-10 Bomarc surface-to-air missile system. By 1959, Ottawa was convinced that the Soviet bomber threat had diminished and that interceptors like the CF-105 were unnecessary; the Bomarc alone would be enough to protect the nation’s airspace. Yet, shortly after the Arrow’s termination, it was unofficially recognized that there was in fact still a bomber threat to North America; and as a result the need for interceptors was once again back on the agenda. Unfortunately, without its own advanced jet, Canada was forced to shop for a replacement from foreign sources, namely the United States. The Aircraft that Canada ended up purchasing was the F-101B Voodoo (which needed a set of nuclear tipped Genie missiles in order to be properly effective at shooting down an aircraft.) And finally and most Ironically, just as Bomarc base construction had gotten underway in Canada, the Pentagon began decommissioning America’s own Bomarcs. The missile system it seems was not a very good weapon after all for a majority of reasons, but not the least of which, it was most ineffective without its nuclear warhead.
**Both Britain and Canada having very promising airframes** US Military Industrial Complex: You will buy our planes instead right? **Slides money under table to politician**
That's a very bad take on the entire thing. The problem with the Arrow and TSR-2 was that the threat environment changed. By the time that the Arrow was being prototyped, ICBMs and SLBMs replaced bombers in the first-strike role, making the entire concept redundant. The 'low and fast' mentality of the TSR-2 died pretty quickly as the Soviets vastly improved their SAMs to make low-altitude flights deadly to anyone flying there.
Right.... Might I just note that the TSR-2's "better option" the F-111 (as mentioned in the video Delivered a decade late and cost way more than the TSR-2) was still in front line service with the USAF until 1998. And the Aussies retired it in 2010. The B-1 which is still in service with the USAF is also a low altitude "penetration" bomber. Which the USAF still employs as a deterrent to PRC shanagins to this day. Also these bombers evolved into different roles (with the Aardvark especially) that were just as important outside of the special weapons delivery roles. One of which the USAF is sorely missing and having to rely on the USN to fulfill the role. Also as we see in Ukraine today. Even a modern SAM net has issues that prohibits complete denial of a battle space. So to quote Sir Stanley Baldwin. "The Bombers will always get through." Or at least their ordnance would. Especially once cruise missiles became the primary method of special weapons delivery.
@@bluejacketwarrior2457 that is a good fiction I'm afraid. Against a semi competent opponent, low is deadly. Hell, the Russians are worse than Iraqi incompetent, given that the Iraqis managed to lock down the lower altitudes.
Yes. But Lock dose not equal Kill. it is still possible to spoof a SAM once launched. Especially the early versions that airframes such as the TSR-2 Arrow and Ardvark would have faced in the hay day. Also, Iraq as far as I can tell is relatively flat in the areas to the south and south east the Coalition operated in during the 91 Gulf War. Also as far as I know the USAF did not employ low level tactics during that conflict. The RAF however did with their Tornados. And while the GR1's did suffer it was to the close in air defenses that the Iraqi airfields had. Those being ZSU's and the like. And still even if an air defense network could stop low level penetrators in their tracks. Why was the F-111 around for so long? And why is the B-1 still a valuable strategic asset?
Leave it to the Liberals to funnel massive amounts of public money to a private company run by their friends, and leave it to the CBC to spend decades creating a false mythology to hide the fact the Liberals have been corrupt for generations. Avro is the same as Bombardier and Irving. Massive corporations which have close ties with the Liberal party, and waste massive amounts of public money. Fun fact about Irving, we could have bought the ships from another country and given every worker for Irving $1,000,00, and we would have still saved hundreds of millions over how much the Liberals have funneled to them.
Interesting, all of these comments and only one touched upon one of the biggest impacts Avro, and the Arrow cancellation, had on human history. See, Canada's loss was the United States' gain, because just at the time that Avro laid off its designers and managers, Kennedy placed the USA on the path to land on the Moon. NASA needed a LOT of talented aerospace engineers, as did its contractors, and they were needed IMMEDIATELY, or else the end-of-decade deadline was no more than a pipe dream. However, with the infusion of roughly the top 10% of the Avro layoffs, both the NASA centers and the various contractor plants gained the expertise they needed to make Gemini and Apollo work. And once they had been hired into NASA, their Canadian origins became forgotten by the guys already working at the centers, and in fact, one of the Avro lead designers and managers became the Project Manager for Project Gemini. In that period of rapid growth, NASA was blessed to have the Avro guys come in and take up important positions. So thanks, Canada!
Su-47 NEVER had thrust vectoring. It was not a technology demonstrator - this was supposed to be a carrier-based Su-27 variant, funded by the Soviet Navy to use on brand new Soviet nuclear-powered catapult-equipped supercarriers designed to reign supreme over Nimitz-class and eat F-14s on breakfast. Then yes, budgets were cut, carrier program stalled and obviously the Su-47 with it. Because the Air Force never had interest in this thing to begin with... So they used the existing prototype as technology demonstrator to find investors (probably foreign government?) but never succeeded. Also turned out forward swept wing is a bitch to maintain. Su-47 wings were not metal, they used composited and they tend to crack due to material fatigue. And you kinda have to replace the whole part, can't patch up the cracked spot, which costs A LOT. Too bad you didn't mention the Mig 1.44 aka MFI - the supposed Air Force 5gen "F-22 killer" which was kinda competitive to Su-47, pioneered lots of interesting solutions starting from true stealth (probably the first Soviet stealth fighter) but eventually stalled in 90s due to lack of funding and was used as a starting point to make Su-57. And yes, Sukhoi lobbied the government to kill the MiG program after they ripped off all the know-hows into Su-57.
The 23 was and still is my favorite. And the Arrow was canceled because of American politics. Damn shame! Americans had to be the best! Ridiculous, as Canada was and still is their most loyal ally.
Of course.... when you leave things to politics. THEY SAY ITS WORTHLESS AND THEY USE SOMETHING EVEN WORSE...... WHY DO WE ALLOW POLITICS TO TAKE OVER A DEFENSE MACHINE.... of the Arrow was good and as Darkness The Cursed said. This plane masterpiece. But no... we let politics rule it over
Forward swept wings have to be heavier than rearward swept wings of the same size and lift and give their best performance at low speed. The Su-47 was built as an response to the failed Grumman X-29. The Air Force chose the wrong plane with the F-22. The overall Canada Arrow is what happens when a colony exceeds what the a home country is capable of doing.
The USAF didn't chose the wrong plane, the problem was the YF-23's ordinance bays. While Northrop and McDonald Douglas promised that the ordiance bays would work even when there was a release failure, the USAF (who got burned quite a few times by companies overselling their products) didn't trust them. The problem with the Arrow and TSR-2 was that the threat environment changed. By the time that the Arrow was being prototyped, ICBMs and SLBMs replaced bombers in the first-strike role, making the entire concept redundant. The 'low and fast' mentality of the TSR-2 died pretty quickly as the Soviets vastly improved their SAMs to make low-altitude flights deadly to anyone flying there.
@@TheTrueAdept The role that the Arrow was suppose to fill was filled by F-101 Voodoo interceptors after the Arrow was cancelled. The TRS-2 would have done the low altitude penetrater better than the planes that did the job after the TRS-2 was cancelled. Both your arguments are nonsense.
@@calvingreene90 they're not. The problem with military development is that the technological context has a major impact. The USAF thought using "low and fast" bombers but it quickly got canned after the USSR revealed their new SAMs capable of downing such aircraft. Please note that during the 1970s, the US managed to tune an AIRCRAFT RADAR to tune out anything radar transparent/translucent on a ground vehicle...
@@calvingreene90 and the USAF quickly instated a 'flight floor' in Desert Storm and the Balkans when aircraft kept getting shot out of the sky when flying at low altitudes. That and the F-111 was fighting against _Iraqis_ who are best described as 'a nation with no doctrine' in how bad they fight outside of the individual scale.
My grandfather worked on the Arrow, specifically the RADAR systems, he also installed RADAR on the AVRO Lancasters. He worked at the AVRO (later became an MD factory) in the Northeast corner of what is now Toronto Pearson International Airport (it used to be Malton Airport).
ETA my grandfather also worked on the DEW line up in the arctic, mostly out of Alert (in what is now Nunavut) so he was hardly ever home, I didn't get to meet him until I was 5-years-old.
But he often regaled us grandkids of his "adventures" in the RCAF during WW2 as a pilot in a Lancaster, his favourite was how he lost one of his big toes while flying over the channel on a bombing run, a ME-109 came up from beneath his plane and got a lucky shot the bullet went through the bombardier's compartment (missing all the vital gear in there), through the cockpit floor, through the rudder pedal and his boot and shot off his toe and embedded itself in the underside of the control panel. Now, all of you that know planes and know the Lancaster especially will know a shot like that is practically impossible, us grandkids didn't... until I became a Royal Canadian Air Cadet, I got to see inside a Lancaster, it was then I knew that story to be made up. So, I asked him privately what really happened to his toe. The story, when he told it to me, was far less dramatic/heroic and was far more in line with our family's true nature, being clumsy. He was helping carry a large piece of what would become one of the windows of the nose, it slipped out of his hands and fell onto his steel-toed boots crushing his big toe to the point of it having to be amputated. So, yep, my gramps was less heroic and more of butter fingers, he only made it over to Britain in 1945 and then only to repair/replace/install RADAR in Lancasters that were already in service.
The USA used the British Electric Canberra, calling it the B-57 Canberra, from 1953-1983. NASA was still using a few of them in 2006, when the UK retired them.
Thank you, you saved me from typing about the Canberra.
I was told by my Dad that some people quietly stored an Avro Arrow at a small RCAF base in Prince Edward County
In fairness, it wasn't so much that "one" mole infiltrated AVRO; it was that apparently, AVRO was so thoroughly infiltrated that the KGB had complete designs and technical specifications for the Arrow, sometimes getting them even before the RCAF did. As for why a warmed-over Arrow wasn't chosen over the F-35, it's simple. The Arrow *did* end up going into service, in a somewhat modified form, as the MiG-25. The thought of trying to buy what was essentially a vaguely-modernized *1950s* design in the late *2010s* was pretty much a non-starter for the same reason that nobody is buying modernized Sherman tanks today...
Blasted soviets!
I find it funny that many years later they found the ejection seat and a engine in a England hanger. which the engine was bought back by a Canadian. so did they truly destroy the aircraft?
You can definitely see the Mig-25 in there like looking at a father and son.
in case you do another one of these, the XB-70 Valkyrie and the F-20 Tigershark are great examples to add
It would be nice if the F-14 was added as well (not that it never stood a chance, but it still got a really bad reputation)
If you do a sequel to this video you should include the Lockheed L1011 Tristar. It was meant to compete against the Mcdonnel Douglas DC-10 but has hampered by two years of delays due to Rolls Royce having trouble making the engines for the Tristar and the DC-10 got there before it. Only 250 wound up being built and only one is still airworthy.
At least our boy Darkness used a picture of an F-111 that was assigned to RAF Lakenheath (48th FW) in this video; that was pretty neat but that’s just me.
Apart from cost, the main thing that killed the TSR2 was it was a threat to the F111.
Two other examples of amazing planes that never stood a chance... the Sud Est Se212 Durandal and the Nord 1500 Griffon II. They both were cancelled in favor of the Dassault Mirage III and the similar Mirage 5.
The TSR-2 and Arrow weren't primarily killed by politics, they were primarily killed by _a changing threat enviroment_ instead. In the Arrow's case, it came out just as SLBMs (Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles) and ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) pushed the bomber out as the primary method of nuclear delivery. In the TSR-2's case, you can thank the Americans spooking the Soviets with the YB-70 Valkyrie for that... which led to the deployment of SAMs capable of hitting low-altitude, high-speed targets with quite a bit of effectiveness.
Nope!!! The TSR2 was cancelled because the aircraft couldn't do the missions it was designed to do, in other words it didn't fooking work!!. The Aircraft was very overweight and couldn't meet the Operational Requirements of the RAF had set for it in almost all regards (Max range, Max Speed, Max Altitude, Minimum time for an engine chance or the even the number of waypoints and delivery modes for weapons held in the computer memory). The Airframe was made out of a new lightweight alloy that was very brittle and would start to crack up with the minimum amount of impact damage. The Engines didn't fit the aircraft and had resonance issues at certain power setting that could only be fixed with a major redesign of the engine. Computers in the aircraft were too slow and didn't have the memory to hold all of the information required for the mission plans, plus could not keep up with the aircraft as regards navigation (a map, stopwatch and magnetic compass were more accurate!!!). Also the power generation systems couldn't power everything the RAF wanted to add like active ECM pods. The RAF had watched all the money allocated for R&D and production of over 300 aircraft get eaten up (plus they had thrown a number of other projects on the scrapheap to release more money), to find that they were going to get a fraction of the aircraft they wanted (between 50 to 150), which couldn't do what they wanted. When the USA offered the British Government a fixed price deal of 50 F-111's for £300M, the Air Staff of the RAF bit the USA's hands off. RAF canned the TSR2, not the Labour government. All of this has been the Archives since 1995 when it was declassified under the Uk's 30 year rule!!!
You know, if it wasn't for the fact the Arrow program was canceled, NASA would have missed out on a lot of talent that helped get us to the Moon.
Well definitely glad, if not also a little embarrassed to not of already found out, that blueprints of the Arrow were quite recently preserved.
The reason we didn't want the arrow in the US was less that it was foreing and more that 1) we already had 3 types in its role (the F-102, F-104, and F-106) and 2) the phantom which was a better aircraft was already in testing before the arrow had even left the drawing board.
Do you think you could possibly do a video on ships that should have been preserved as museums?
Agreed HMS Warspite should have been preserved as a museum ship.
Like the USS Enterprise that was in WW2. Scrapped.
I just found out that the man responsible for the design of the Avro Arrow (James C. Floyd) is still alive! He's 108!
The F-35s fly low over my house, I live near the end of their runway here in Utah. They are louder than the old F-16s… Thanks for your Arrow story.
I live across the street from Luke AFB and yes they are loud. Way back in 1960 I spent a summer with my uncle who live off the end of runway at Carswell. B-58 Hustlers were also very loud. And my 1971-73 AF tour in Germany was spent in the barracks at end of runway also and F-4 Phantoms are not quiet. Final note(not close this time) lighting off AB in an F-105 Thud is something to remember. I'm 77yo now and don't hear too well. Hmm. You don't suppose?
Sukai 47 looks a lot like an F 16 forward swept variant.
Sukhoi
It can get confusing with America "not buying in", however in the case of the Harrier and the Canberra before that, they were licensed versions built in America. The former by McDonnell-Douglas, as a version of the FRS-5 (aka AV-8A) and the larger FRS-7 (aka AV-8B)... the later was by Martin, yes the same manufacturer who made the flying boats, and the only American Jet powered flying boat bomber....
I'll so add that Australia had developed a Trimaran ship, and well, the US joint builds are being scrapped because of "Reasons", partly as they were built to be modular with system pods (kind of Thunderbird 2 thing), but that didn't work.
Also the USMC were looking at acquiring "Bushmaster" wheeled APCs from Australia (then Australian Defense Industries, now Thales Defense), it was to be a blueprint build by Oshkosh.... but Politics and porkbarrelling happened.
The XB-70 Valkyrie was another example of a great plane that didn't have a chance. It was a supersonic bomber developed during the Cold War for the US, and would have been able to deliver a nuclear warhead to anywhere in the world in just hours. It could reach Mach 3, and its wing design could even generate lift from the shock waves it created.
However, on one prototype, the tail fin fell off during supersonic flight, which almost resulted in a crash. Then, a second (more advanced) prototype was destroyed during a photo shoot, when an F-104 flew through its jet wash, and crashed into the XB-70, killing some of the crew members. That incident helped to put an end to the program. Also, at the time, there were major breakthroughs in radar and surface-to-air missiles, meaning its speed wouldn't be enough for successful missions.
That plane was amazing, but it was far ahead of its time, and instead of politics, it was the victim of many technical issues.
Duncan Sandys pronounced his surname as "Sands". Never take the pronunciation of any name used in the UK at face value. Those of us alive at the time of the project never said "dash" in the name "TSR-2". It was always the "TeeEssAhTwo". (note the non-rhotic English R).
The Super Tomcat 21 also belongs here
Yes exactly
Ah, the AVRO Arrow. One of Canada's most famous white elephants. Probably the greatest justice to this massive mistake is the fact that the Arrows are getting replicas, using the designs smuggled out years ago. And yes, there is a plan to make an actual, full-sized, flying replica of the Arrow in the future. If enough funds are raised, it could happen!
If Devenbacker didn't axe the Avro Arrow, Canada would have been one of the most powerful Dominions of the British Empire, maybe even the world. We truly lost our chance.
Look, another sucker who bought into the CBC propaganda. Sorry to break it to you bud, but the CBC has used patriotism to hide Liberal corruption from you.
In reality, the Arrow was a crappy plane, that performed poorly compared to the competition and was much more expensive. The program was outrageously expensive and was causing the rest of the military to be underfunded.
The reason the CBC has created the mythology around the Arrow is because the Avro Company had deep ties to the ruling Liberal government. The head of Avro just happened to be close personal friends with the defense minister, and Avro was located in a region the Liberals wanted to win.
Could it be that the Avro Arrow and the TSR-2 were both cancelled because they weren't American?
yup, and because both would directly compete for overseas sales with American products that they had the potential to be significantly better than
this happened with a lot of projects
No, because the threat enviroment changed. By the time that the Arrow was being prototyped, ICBMs and SLBMs replaced bombers in the first-strike role, making the entire concept redundant. The 'low and fast' mentality of the TSR-2 died pretty quickly as the Soviets vastly improved their SAMs to make low-altitude flights _deadly_ to anyone flying there.
The arrow was canceled because it solved a problem that no longer needed solving.
@@TheTrueAdept the low and fast mentality is the entire reason the B-1 lancer exists. Just saying
@@Demonslayer20111 yeah, but it still flies at the flight floor or above after Desert Storm.
12:41 true, but the real reason we didn't want the arrow is because we already had the F-104, F-106, & F4. All of which had similar performance. But ya, I also wish at least one arrow and one TSR2 had been saved
Why does he sound like josh scorcher? Maybe it’s the microphone he’s using. Very entertaining content regardless dude keep these videos coming..
The US sells military aircraft and doesn't buy military aircraft unless it's the Harrier, Canberra, or the T45.
🤯My favorite jet is the f 22 as well Darkness.
The TSR-2 was killed by political infighting including a Royal Navy type selling the Navy Plane internationally to try and preserve the Royal Navy's Carrier Force by putting the inferior but carrier capable attack plane into a service.
Probably the truth were much more sinister, it was the same period of time that US start to takeover canada's aviation business, judging by that destroy all finished product, it could very much be a NWO scandal shit.
@@Saviliana
The UK leftists went war against the Commonwealth's aviation industry. The American government offered to buy the Canadian Air Force Avro Arrows. You kill your own industry someone else will take over.
The American government has done many bad things. Gutting the Commonwealth aviation industry was not one of them.
@@calvingreene90 Oh really? Those UK leftists weren't planted by "The Agency" like how they did to everywhere else?
@@Saviliana
They were active in British politics before "The Agency" was created.
Nope. TSR2 was canned because it didn't WORK!!!!!
Is that British Railway infiltrating into your aviation videos?
Britain has a lot of amazing planes (that never stood a chance). If you think British Railways was inept, you really should read up on how badly Britain's aerospace industry has declined since the end of WWII.
It topps Scott Manley's lost of space errors,developing a rocket and immediately cancelling it.
The same as car manufacturing, nationalise everything and use it as a tool to run the economy.
Love the vids but the intro is so cringe, change that and you’ll have a spectacular channel, I wish you the best
What about the Ho-229?
stllll used in doritos
When talking about the YF-23 you also have to mention that Lockheed did a lot of politicking to remind the USAF of Grumman's issues when delivering the B-2s. If they went purely off of the design requirements then the 23 really should have won the contract. They made it so much of an issue that Northrop Grumman wasn't even invited to compete in the JSF program that bore the F-35. Boeing really has no business trying to produce a fighter.
19:50
Meanwhile the dodge demon sitting in the corner: Am I a joke to you?
Avro Arrow would have been a grest intrceptor. And if you look at some of the centuty designs you can see rlemnts of the Arroe. Not suprising many of DHCs dedignersxeent to US companies
😊
We really should talk of the proverbial herd of pachyderms in the room.... AVRO Canada, along with De Havilland, were Shadow factories for these brands... like Fords made in Windsor, Ontario, not Dearborn, Michigan. So AVRO started as A.V. Roe Aircraft Co., shortened to AVRO. Sir Edwin Alliott Verdon-Roe (the A.V. Roe) founded AVRO in 1910 with his brother Humphrey, he sold his shares in 1928, and bought S.E.Saunders and Co., boat builders on the Isle of Wight, rebranding the company Saunders-Roe. A company best remembered for their flying boats, in particular the post war prototypes, the SR.A/1 flying boat fighter jet, the SR.45 "Princess" twin deck, 100 passenger flying boat, with ten turbo-prop engines (eight were paired to drive contrarotating propellers), then there's the paper extrapolation from that into the "Jet Princess" - a jet engined variant with six Rolls-Royce RB.80 Conway engines., the "Duchess" - an enlargement to 200 passengers and eight Rolls-Royce RB.80 Conway engines... which was ordered by Tasman Empire Airways Limited (TEAL, precursor to Air New Zealand), and cancelled to be replaced by Lockheed Electra and Boeing 720's... then finally the "Queen" - a 1000 passenger aircraft aimed not at airlines, but at liner companies, like Penninsula and Orient (P&O), with 24 engines.
XB 70 Valkyrie
It may be spelt Sandys but it's pronounced Sands.
Cost overruns plus a basket case economy lesd to the TSR-2's cancellation. The RAF provided the USAF a copy of GOR.339 on which the TSR-2 was based. The USAF got a good deal out of that paper.
Well, the Arrow program had their revenge, when Diefenbaker was kicked out of office months later IIRC.
Well my bet is that all that X 36 dater went straight to the F 22
The cancellation of the Arrow was intimately connected with Canada’s adoption of the CIM-10 Bomarc surface-to-air missile system. By 1959, Ottawa was convinced that the Soviet bomber threat had diminished and that interceptors like the CF-105 were unnecessary; the Bomarc alone would be enough to protect the nation’s airspace. Yet, shortly after the Arrow’s termination, it was unofficially recognized that there was in fact still a bomber threat to North America; and as a result the need for interceptors was once again back on the agenda. Unfortunately, without its own advanced jet, Canada was forced to shop for a replacement from foreign sources, namely the United States.
The Aircraft that Canada ended up purchasing was the F-101B Voodoo (which needed a set of nuclear tipped Genie missiles in order to be properly effective at shooting down an aircraft.) And finally and most Ironically, just as Bomarc base construction had gotten underway in Canada, the Pentagon began decommissioning America’s own Bomarcs. The missile system it seems was not a very good weapon after all for a majority of reasons, but not the least of which, it was most ineffective without its nuclear warhead.
**Both Britain and Canada having very promising airframes**
US Military Industrial Complex: You will buy our planes instead right? **Slides money under table to politician**
That's a very bad take on the entire thing. The problem with the Arrow and TSR-2 was that the threat environment changed. By the time that the Arrow was being prototyped, ICBMs and SLBMs replaced bombers in the first-strike role, making the entire concept redundant. The 'low and fast' mentality of the TSR-2 died pretty quickly as the Soviets vastly improved their SAMs to make low-altitude flights deadly to anyone flying there.
Right.... Might I just note that the TSR-2's "better option" the F-111 (as mentioned in the video Delivered a decade late and cost way more than the TSR-2) was still in front line service with the USAF until 1998. And the Aussies retired it in 2010. The B-1 which is still in service with the USAF is also a low altitude "penetration" bomber. Which the USAF still employs as a deterrent to PRC shanagins to this day.
Also these bombers evolved into different roles (with the Aardvark especially) that were just as important outside of the special weapons delivery roles. One of which the USAF is sorely missing and having to rely on the USN to fulfill the role.
Also as we see in Ukraine today. Even a modern SAM net has issues that prohibits complete denial of a battle space. So to quote Sir Stanley Baldwin. "The Bombers will always get through." Or at least their ordnance would. Especially once cruise missiles became the primary method of special weapons delivery.
@@bluejacketwarrior2457 that is a good fiction I'm afraid. Against a semi competent opponent, low is deadly. Hell, the Russians are worse than Iraqi incompetent, given that the Iraqis managed to lock down the lower altitudes.
Yes. But Lock dose not equal Kill. it is still possible to spoof a SAM once launched. Especially the early versions that airframes such as the TSR-2 Arrow and Ardvark would have faced in the hay day.
Also, Iraq as far as I can tell is relatively flat in the areas to the south and south east the Coalition operated in during the 91 Gulf War. Also as far as I know the USAF did not employ low level tactics during that conflict. The RAF however did with their Tornados. And while the GR1's did suffer it was to the close in air defenses that the Iraqi airfields had. Those being ZSU's and the like.
And still even if an air defense network could stop low level penetrators in their tracks. Why was the F-111 around for so long? And why is the B-1 still a valuable strategic asset?
@@bluejacketwarrior2457 at lower altitudes, it is effectively a kill.
Leave it to Conservatives to try ruin Canada
Leave it to the Liberals to funnel massive amounts of public money to a private company run by their friends, and leave it to the CBC to spend decades creating a false mythology to hide the fact the Liberals have been corrupt for generations.
Avro is the same as Bombardier and Irving.
Massive corporations which have close ties with the Liberal party, and waste massive amounts of public money. Fun fact about Irving, we could have bought the ships from another country and given every worker for Irving $1,000,00, and we would have still saved hundreds of millions over how much the Liberals have funneled to them.
Actually the US Airforce Brass wanted the first five copies the CIA on the other hand did not.
Interesting, all of these comments and only one touched upon one of the biggest impacts Avro, and the Arrow cancellation, had on human history. See, Canada's loss was the United States' gain, because just at the time that Avro laid off its designers and managers, Kennedy placed the USA on the path to land on the Moon. NASA needed a LOT of talented aerospace engineers, as did its contractors, and they were needed IMMEDIATELY, or else the end-of-decade deadline was no more than a pipe dream. However, with the infusion of roughly the top 10% of the Avro layoffs, both the NASA centers and the various contractor plants gained the expertise they needed to make Gemini and Apollo work. And once they had been hired into NASA, their Canadian origins became forgotten by the guys already working at the centers, and in fact, one of the Avro lead designers and managers became the Project Manager for Project Gemini. In that period of rapid growth, NASA was blessed to have the Avro guys come in and take up important positions. So thanks, Canada!
Where’s your face cam?
Su-47 NEVER had thrust vectoring.
It was not a technology demonstrator - this was supposed to be a carrier-based Su-27 variant, funded by the Soviet Navy to use on brand new Soviet nuclear-powered catapult-equipped supercarriers designed to reign supreme over Nimitz-class and eat F-14s on breakfast.
Then yes, budgets were cut, carrier program stalled and obviously the Su-47 with it.
Because the Air Force never had interest in this thing to begin with...
So they used the existing prototype as technology demonstrator to find investors (probably foreign government?) but never succeeded.
Also turned out forward swept wing is a bitch to maintain.
Su-47 wings were not metal, they used composited and they tend to crack due to material fatigue. And you kinda have to replace the whole part, can't patch up the cracked spot, which costs A LOT.
Too bad you didn't mention the Mig 1.44 aka MFI - the supposed Air Force 5gen "F-22 killer" which was kinda competitive to Su-47, pioneered lots of interesting solutions starting from true stealth (probably the first Soviet stealth fighter) but eventually stalled in 90s due to lack of funding and was used as a starting point to make Su-57. And yes, Sukhoi lobbied the government to kill the MiG program after they ripped off all the know-hows into Su-57.
Ah yes, half of these are in Ace Combat
The 23 was and still is my favorite. And the Arrow was canceled because of American politics. Damn shame! Americans had to be the best! Ridiculous, as Canada was and still is their most loyal ally.
Of course.... when you leave things to politics. THEY SAY ITS WORTHLESS AND THEY USE SOMETHING EVEN WORSE...... WHY DO WE ALLOW POLITICS TO TAKE OVER A DEFENSE MACHINE.... of the Arrow was good and as Darkness The Cursed said. This plane masterpiece. But no... we let politics rule it over
The US gov has never got on with northropp...right back to the 40s...and lockeed kisses ass better.
Forward swept wings have to be heavier than rearward swept wings of the same size and lift and give their best performance at low speed. The Su-47 was built as an response to the failed Grumman X-29.
The Air Force chose the wrong plane with the F-22.
The overall Canada Arrow is what happens when a colony exceeds what the a home country is capable of doing.
The USAF didn't chose the wrong plane, the problem was the YF-23's ordinance bays. While Northrop and McDonald Douglas promised that the ordiance bays would work even when there was a release failure, the USAF (who got burned quite a few times by companies overselling their products) didn't trust them.
The problem with the Arrow and TSR-2 was that the threat environment changed. By the time that the Arrow was being prototyped, ICBMs and SLBMs replaced bombers in the first-strike role, making the entire concept redundant. The 'low and fast' mentality of the TSR-2 died pretty quickly as the Soviets vastly improved their SAMs to make low-altitude flights deadly to anyone flying there.
@@TheTrueAdept
The role that the Arrow was suppose to fill was filled by F-101 Voodoo interceptors after the Arrow was cancelled.
The TRS-2 would have done the low altitude penetrater better than the planes that did the job after the TRS-2 was cancelled. Both your arguments are nonsense.
@@calvingreene90 they're not. The problem with military development is that the technological context has a major impact.
The USAF thought using "low and fast" bombers but it quickly got canned after the USSR revealed their new SAMs capable of downing such aircraft.
Please note that during the 1970s, the US managed to tune an AIRCRAFT RADAR to tune out anything radar transparent/translucent on a ground vehicle...
@@TheTrueAdept
The F-111 wasn't retired until after the fall of the Evil Russian Empire.
@@calvingreene90 and the USAF quickly instated a 'flight floor' in Desert Storm and the Balkans when aircraft kept getting shot out of the sky when flying at low altitudes. That and the F-111 was fighting against _Iraqis_ who are best described as 'a nation with no doctrine' in how bad they fight outside of the individual scale.